WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden CPRE Research on New Forms of Teacher Compensation

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden CPRE research on school-based performance awards l Purpose –to examine the motivational responses of teachers l Research sites –Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) & sample of Kentucky schools –Interviews with teachers & principals –Surveys of teachers & principals

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden A Model of School Performance

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Expectancy theory framework - motivation & student achievement Competencies School Teacher Effort AchievementTeacher Goals/Targets Consequences Intensity Positive Persistence Negative Focus Enablers

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden How to enhance achievement- General strategy.

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Teacher Expectancy in Meeting School Goals Perceived probability that working hard will result in achieving reward status: l CMS : 56% individual, 62% group l KY : 39% individual, 53% group

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Factors that influenced expectancy l Receiving reward in the past l School level (lower in high schools) l Feedback of assessment results l Principal support/professional community l Lack of conflict between SBPA goals and other goals l Perception that SBPA program was run fairly

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Teacher expectancy perceptions matter! One standard deviation increase in expectancy.2-.3 standard deviation increase in measures of school performance (enough to move a school into the “award” category)

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Teachers’ Instrumentality Perceptions. l CMS average = 73% l Kentucky average = 54% l Higher in reward schools

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Most Desirable Outcomes Goal Attainment Rewards –public recognition for meeting goals –personal satisfaction of meeting goals –working toward clear school-wide goals –receiving a bonus for meeting goals –receiving school improvement funds for meeting goals

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Most Desirable Outcomes II Learning Outcomes –working cooperatively with other teachers –having students learn new skills –additional opportunities for professional development –personal satisfaction from improved student performance

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Least Desirable Outcomes Sanctions –public criticism & embarrassment for not meeting goals –risk to job security –loss of professional pride –school intervention Stress –more pressure & job stress –putting in more hours –less freedom to teach things unrelated to goals

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Bonus Reactions l It is appropriate for teachers to receive bonuses l Small bonuses (e.g. $1,000 or less) are not likely to be highly motivating l Teachers do not favor being responsible for dividing up a school’s reward money

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Bonus reactions of a Kentucky subsample l Average self-reported effect of bonus on motivation to achieve goals was not high. l Though bonuses were seen as desirable, the average desire to see bonus program continued was not high. l Teachers most favorable toward bonus program had low satisfaction with their base salary, felt receiving a bonus was fair, and felt that the bonus process was fair.

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Rewards to teachers may have a “focusing” effect l Teachers in programs with pay rewards (and sanctions) had relatively higher levels of understanding of the goals, and l Teachers who valued the positive outcomes associated with achieving the goals were more committed to the goals.

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Conclusions l SBPA programs have potential for motivating teachers toward improving student achievement. l To realize that potential in practice requires: –providing bonuses of a meaningful size –making a long-term commitment –providing enablers to help teachers achieve

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Conclusions l To realize that potential in practice requires: –continuous communication about the program –that teachers perceive that the program is administered fairly

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden CPRE Research on Knowledge & Skill-Based Pay Programs

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Research on NBPTS certification CPRE research (Kelly & Kimball, 2000): l Financial incentives motivate teachers to begin the process. l Other motivators cited: desire to affirm they were accomplished teachers, personal challenge, and professional growth l Participation in process functions as professional development. l Impact limited to certified teachers; no effect yet on broader professional community

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Conclusions from other research on NBPTS certification l Highly trained raters can produce highly reliable ratings (see JPEE 12 (2), 1998) l Recent study of 65 teachers by UNC- Greensboro researchers showed: –NBPTS certified teachers had significantly higher mean scores on 11 of 13 dimensions of teacher performance – Work of students of certified teachers showed a higher level of comprehension of subject

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden CPRE Research: Douglas County, Colorado l Modifications of standard pay schedule l Group Incentive (about $400-$500) l $25-$500 Site & District Responsibility Pay l 6 Skill Blocks: $250-$500 l $1,000 Outstanding Educator Award

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden CPRE (and District) Research: Douglas County l High level of teacher acceptance l Improved credibility with community l Appears to be filling skill gaps l Annual portfolios too burdensome l Student performance has improved, but difficult to tease out KSBP’s contribution l Importance of union-management cooperation

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden CPRE research on Cincinnati’s new teacher assessment system l Teachers understood & accepted the standards l Newer teachers more favorable l Wide variation in the capacity of administrators to manage the process and provide useful feedback l Administrator capacity appeared to affect teachers’ attitudes toward the system

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden CPRE research on Cincinnati’s teacher assessment system (cont.) l Most evaluators felt comfortable applying the rubrics l Many administrators had trouble finding the time l Many tended to “confirm” good teachers rather than coach to better performance

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Implications from Cincinnati research l Important to have, or develop, a shared conception of good teaching and learning –Standards (e.g. Framework) good first step –develop consensus in process of defining knowledge & skills –review alignment with other programs l May need a cadre of specialist evaluators to share evaluation tasks with site administrators

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Implications from Cincinnati research (cont.) l Need assessor training –to ensure consistency & accuracy –to improve capacity for feedback & coaching l Need teacher orientation –reassurance –communicate centrality of instruction & role of program in supporting it

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden CPRE Research - Vaughn Learning Center l Up to $6,000 in pay supplements based on credentials or certifications (e.g. NBPTS, California Teaching Credential) l Up to $13,100 in knowledge and skill-based pay; example domains: literacy, technology, classroom management, math, science, English learners’ support l $1,500 school-based performance award

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden CPRE Research - Vaughn Learning Center’s 1st Year l Changing pay created some controversy, even though only new teachers had to participate l Most agreed that the plan got discussion going on defining good teaching l An initial major concern was the fairness of the skill assessment process (rubrics not yet fully developed, classroom observation process not worked out)

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Vaughn Learning Center’s 2nd Year l Fairness perceptions improved: e.g. 64% agreed evaluation received was fair; 75% agreed the way the skills were measured was fair l 78% agreed the amount of K & S pay received was fair l 75% agreed that the K & S program should continue l Many veteran teachers chose to participate in the 2nd year of the plan (for extra $, recognition)

WCER-CPRE,  2000, Allan Odden Vaughn Learning Center’s 2nd Year l School-based Performance Award Program: –Mean group expectancy probability: 79% –Mean instrumentality probability: 81% –70% agreed goals were fair –79% agreed program should continue l Total program appears to be influencing attraction & retention